alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# What motivates you? if your answer is commitment and service, the National Health Service Corps has scholarships to help you resolve your money issues

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  What motivates you? if your answer is commitment and service, the National Health Service Corps has scholarships to help you resolve your money issues 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Public Health ServiceNational Health Service Corps (U.S.) 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Caption title. 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1990-2000 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  144 × 28 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ricoh Aficio 3228 Scanner at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu. 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  071357428.jpg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-21-0000696

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

C IDA KEIKO YONEOKA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODEL REVILLA ARIOS; VERONICA CABRAS ARIOS; CRYSTAL BELARAS; D ARCY BELARAS; CHRISTOPHER ARIOS, Defendants-Appellants, and JOHN DOES 2-50; JANE DOES 2-50; AND DOE PARTNERSHIPS, C ORPORATIONS, GOVERNMENTAL UNITS OR OTHER ENTITIES 1-50, Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

( CIVIL NO. 1CCV-20-0001269)

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISMISS APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and McCullen, JJ.) Upon consideration of the Stipulation for Dismissal of Notice of Appeal, Filed December 14, 2021 With Prejudice, filed March 4, 2022, by Defendants-Appellants Rodel Revilla Arios, Veronica Cabras Arios, Crystal Belaras, Darcy Belaras, and Christopher Arios, the papers in support, and the record, it appears that (1) the appeal has been docketed and the filing fees have been paid; (2) the parties stipulate to dismiss the appeal with prejudice and bear their own attorneys' fees and costs, under Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(b); and Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-21-0000696 13-APR-2022 08:07 AM Dkt. 37 OAWSTN O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### (3) the stipulation is dated and signed by counsel for all parties appearing in the appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation is approved and the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs on appeal.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, April 13, 2022. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Associate Judge /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge

2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9106 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9106

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To direct the Director of the United States Secret Service to apply the 
same standards for determining the number of agents required to protect 
     Presidents, Vice Presidents, and major Presidential and Vice 
            Presidential candidates, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Enhanced Presidential Security Act 
of 2024''.

SEC. 2. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION OF PRESIDENTS, 
              VICE PRESIDENTS, AND MAJOR PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE 
              PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.

    The Director of the United States Secret Service shall apply the 
same standards for determining the number of agents required to protect 
Presidents, Vice Presidents, and major Presidential and Vice 
Presidential candidates.

SEC. 3. REPORT.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Director of the United States Secret Service shall conduct a 
comprehensive review of the provision of protection by the Secret 
Service for Presidents, Vice Presidents, former Presidents, and major 
Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, and submit to the 
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report that includes the 
findings from such review, along with any recommendations for improving 
the provision of protection.

SEC. 4. DEFINITION.

    In this Act, the term ``major Presidential and Vice Presidential 
candidates'' has the meaning given such term in section 3056 of title 
18, United States Code, and includes any other Presidential or Vice 
Presidential candidate for whom the President has otherwise authorized 
the Secret Service to protect.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 20, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 9106

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To direct the Director of the United States Secret Service to apply the 
same standards for determining the number of agents required to protect 
     Presidents, Vice Presidents, and major Presidential and Vice 
            Presidential candidates, and for other purposes.
```
#### Benj. Fanning, Resp’t, *v.*John W. Vrooman *et al.,*App’lts.

*L. W. Baxter,*for resp’t; *J. H. Olute,*for app’lts.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Affirming 12 N. Y. State Rep., 393.
Exhibit 32

                           Section 1350 Certifications

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
         of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of
         TransNet Corporation (the "Company") hereby certify to such officer's
         knowledge that:

     1.  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal period
         ended March 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations
         of the Company.

     /s/ Steven J. Wilk
     ---------------------------
     Steven J. Wilk
     Chief Executive Officer

     Date:  May 12, 2006

     /s/ John J. Wilk
     ---------------------------
     John J. Wilk
     Chief Financial Officer

     Date:  May 12, 2006
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 10, 2011 | By:  | /s/ Tianfu Yang    |   |
|-------------------------|-----------|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |      | Tianfu Yang             |   |
|                    |      | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                    |      |                    |   |
| Date: May 10, 2011 | By:  | /s/ Zedong Xu      |   |
|                    |      | Zedong Xu               |   |
|                    |      | Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Sharnika Viswakula, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Staffing 360 Solutions, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 

Date: May 20, 2020

/s/ Sharnika Viswakula

Sharnika Viswakula

Corporate Controller

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

 

 

4831-3112-2364 v.2
# C_2007183EN.01001202.xml

| 4.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/12

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Stichting ROM-projecten v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

(Case C-158/06) (1)

1

(Structural funds - Repayment of Community aid in the case of irregularity - Failure to publish or make known the conditions of grant of the aid - Beneficiary's lack of knowledge - Good faith - Legal certainty - Effectiveness - Article 10 EC)

(2007/C 183/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting ROM-projecten

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 6 of Commission Decision C (95) 1753 of 16 October 1995 concerning a contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) for an operational programme within the framework of the SME Community initiative for the benefit of areas eligible under Objectives 1 and 2 in the Netherlands — Whether unconditional and sufficiently clear and precise to be directly applicable with regard to the final beneficiary — Interpretation of Article 38(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1) — Non-recovery, following an irregularity, vis-à-vis a beneficiary who was not informed of the Commission's decision

Operative part of the judgment

Where the conditions for the grant of a financial assistance by the Community to a Member State are set out in the grant decision but that Member State has neither published them nor made them known to the ultimate beneficiary of the assistance, it is not contrary to Community law to apply the principle of legal certainty so as to preclude repayment by that beneficiary of the amounts wrongly paid, provided that it is possible to establish the beneficiary's good faith. In such a case, the Member State concerned may be held financially liable for the amounts not recovered in order to give effect to the Community's right to obtain repayment of the amount of the assistance.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

1

---
No. 65652.

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co., Inc., and Williams, Clarke Co. *v.*United States,

protest 58/13944 (Los Angeles).

*489Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
A90A0432.

#### INMAN v. THE STATE.

(395 SE2d 52)

Carley, Chief Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of molesting her three-year-old daughter. She appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court on the jury’s verdict of guilt.

1. Appellant enumerates as error the denial of her motion for new trial, urging that venue was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

A review of the transcript shows that the evidence as to venue, though slight and circumstantial, was sufficient. “ ‘It is well recognized in this [S]tate that slight evidence is sufficient to establish venue, where there is no conflicting evidence. [Cits.] . . . [Circumstantial as well as direct evidence may be used to establish venue. [Cit.] Venue is a question to be decided by the jury and its decision will not be set aside as long as there is . . . evidence to support it. [Cits.]’ [Cit.] Although there was some evidence . . . that the victim [lived in Michigan for a month during the period alleged in the indictment], this alone was not sufficient to present conflicting evidence that the [molestations] occurred in that [State]. The evidence at trial was sufficient to authorize the jury’s finding that venue was in [Hall] County, Georgia. Appellant’s enumeration of error regarding lack of venue is without merit.” *Jones v. State,*245 Ga. 592, 596-97 (2) (266 SE2d 201) (1980). See also *Amerson v. State,*177 Ga. App. 97, 99 (2) (338 SE2d 528) (1985); *Taylor v. State,*176 Ga. App. 567 (1) (336 SE2d 832) (1985).

2. During the direct examination of one of the State’s expert witnesses, appellant objected that the witness had testified to the opinion of another expert and not to her own opinion. The trial court’s failure to sustain this objection is enumerated as error.

“While an expert witness may support his opinion by reference to books, statistical sources and other learned sources, his testimony is *806inadmissible when it is merely a restatement of a textbook opinion rather than an independent expression of his own personal opinion. [Cits.]” *Department of Transp. v. Brand,*149 Ga. App. 547 (1) (254 SE2d 873) (1979). Contrary to appellant’s assertions, however, no erroneous hearsay opinion was given in the instant case. The record shows that the contested testimony was a mere background reference to the development of the psychological test that the testifying witness had administered to the victim and upon which the testifying witness based her own opinion that the victim evidenced characteristics of having been sexually abused. The trial court did not err in failing to sustain appellant’s objection to this background testimony.

Decided May 30, 1990.

*L. Eddie Benton, Jr.,*for appellant.

C. *Andrew Fuller, District Attorney, Lee Darragh, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.*
No. 54177.

#### American Pacific S. S. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 148766-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
f8k080608ex10iii_ea2fund.htm


    


     

    EXHIBIT 10.3


    


     

    


    AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

    


    This Amendment No. 1 dated as of August
6, 2008 to that certain Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”), between
Fund.com Inc. (formerly known as Meade Technologies Inc.), a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”) and Raymond Lang, a New York resident (the
“Executive”).

    


    W I T N E S S E T H

    


    WHEREAS, the Company and
Employee are parties to that certain Employment Agreement dated December 20,
2007 (the “Original Agreement”).

    


    WHEREAS, the Executive and the
Company desire to amend the Original Agreement as hereinafter set
forth.

    


    NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein, the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as
follows:

    


    
      	
              1.  

            	
              Effective
      as of the date hereof, the Original Agreement is hereby amended as
      follows:

            


    

    


    
      	
              A.  

            	
              The
      references to the Company as “Meade Technologies Inc.” in the opening,
      Recital, Section 12 and the signature block shall be amended by replacing
      “Meade Technologies Inc.” with “Fund.com
Inc.”

            


    

    


    
      	
              B.  

            	
              The
      Recitals, Section 2 and Section 3 shall be amended by replacing the term
      “Chief Executive Officer”
with“President”.

            


    

    


    
      	
              2.  

            	
              Except
      as otherwise specifically set forth herein, all of the terms and
      provisions of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and
      effect.

            


    

    


           
3.  This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed to be an original.

    


    [Signature
Page to Follow]

     

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the day first above
written.

    


    


    FUND.COM INC.

    


    


    /s/ Raymond Lang

    By: Raymond Lang

    Title: Chief Executive
Officer

    


    


    EXECUTIVE:

    


    


    /s/ Raymond Lang

    Raymond Lang
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RICHARD T. McWHIRTER, Basic Airman, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

11 USCMA 420, 29 CMR 236

*421No. 13,684

Decided April 22, 1960

*Major Charles K. Rush*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel James L. Kilgore.*

*Major Lawrence J. Gross*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Colonel John F. Hannigan.*

Opinion of the Court

GeoRge W. LatimeR, Judge:

The accused was tried by a special court-martial for the commission of offenses in violation of Articles 92, 128 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 892, 928 and 934, respectively. He was found not guilty of the Article 134 offense but was convicted of violating the other two Articles. Prior to the court going into secret session to deliberate on the sentence, the president.properly informed the members on the maximum sentence which could be imposed by a special court. When the court opened he announced the sentence in the following language:

> “President: Airman Basic Mc-Whirter, it is my duty as president of this court to inform you that the court in closed session and upon secret written ballot, two thirds of all members present at the time the vote was taken concurring, sentences you:

> “To four months at hard labor, forfeiture of two-thirds pay for four months and a bad conduct discharge.”

After the court adjourned and on the same day, it was brought to the attention of the president by another member of the court that the words “to be confined” had been omitted when the sentence was announced. Thereupon, the president attempted to reconvene the court to correct the error but, because the members had dispersed, reconvening was not possible at that time. On the next day the court met and the sentence was corrected to include the missing phrase, but the amendment was made over the objection of the defense counsel.

We granted accused’s petition for review to determine whether the proceedings were regular and the sentence correctable after adjournment. Our order granting the petition was prior to the release of our opinion in United States v Hollis, 11 USCMA 235, 29 CMR 51. While the attempted corrections in the two cases were at different levels, for all practical purposes the issue decided in that case is identical with the one asserted by the accused in the case at bar. Accordingly, the holding in that instance is dispositive of the question raised here and upon its authority the decision of the board of review is affirmed. It is so ordered.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Hollis, 11 USCMA 235, 29 CMR 51.
#### The People v. John Mahon, Principal, and Jas. Rowan, Surety.

Motion to vacate judgment entered on forfeited recognizance.

The judgment entered on the forfeited recognizance in this case should be vacated and cancelled, as after the default the principal appeared in court and was duly tried and convicted, and no rights of the people were lost through the default,
EXHIBIT 13.1/13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



In connection with this annual report of
Globus Maritime Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Athanasios Feidakis, President, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: April 11, 2017



|By: | /s/ Athanasios Feidakis                                               | 
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|    | Name: Athanasios Feidakis                                             | 
|    | Title: President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |